Slashdot Mirror

Doh! Broken link. The paper I meant to cite is actually here

> No, linux does not already do this.

Yes, it does (well, 85% of it at least), in the form of DProbes. Dynamic Probes was ported by IBM from OS/2 to Linux way back in 2000, is distributed by SuSE and some parts are in 2.6 kernel out-of-box.

Urm, its already been done by IBM a long time ago. They ported DProbes from OS/2 to Linux way back in 2000. SuSE has distributed it for quite a while & some parts are now in stock 2.6 kernels. See the IBM DProbes project

How does Dtrace for Solaris differ from Kprobes and Dprobes for Linux ??

How does Dtrace for Solaris differ from Kprobes and Dprobes for Linux ??

If I pay one of my specialists extra because I think he outperforms the rest, I have to pay all specialists extra. Equal rights stuff. This effectively means that you basically can't reward people individually. You are always rewarding a group of people. Effectively this leads to job-titles you only find in Dilbert, because this gives you the possibility to reward individuals who care, work overtime when needed or just perform in an extraordinary way (like not laughing at a customer when he says that his core business runs on windows and such...).

If not for the other things, this wouldnt be half bad if it were executed properly and if you didnt have the runaround you described(Retitling) - then I'd not mind seeing this in the States. This would make people think twice about hiring someone.

And the best of them .... as an employer I have to pay the salary of my workers if they get ill. And that is no problem. But I also have to keep on paying them, even if they can't work because of own decisions. And that can last two complete years. So, if one of those guys crashes his car with 200 km/h during holidays, I end up paying for his treatment, including two years of salary.... think about Skiing, Bungeejumping, etc... awww.

Well, this one you deserve, since this one gives the right benefits to the right side(keeps you from going evil). Especially with all those Enron/WorldCom scandals, those executive parachutes would be shot down by the workers who got shafted before the creditors get a bite.

It just makes you (and us) outsource everything to places where the law is a bit more normal.

I guess youlike slave labor and/or like working for them. No thanks, I'll choose saner companies (yes, that I stands for International, but they dont pride themselves in it)service over some company who gloats about sends off work to these bozos. And if no job is god given, it's going to take a real axe to the board room to stop the insanity you suggest. Yes, a real axe, and yes, Virginia, heads will roll, with careers following suit.

IBM is already working on that: CodeRuler

IBM has a rather neat page detailing the use of an AFM (Atomic Force Microscope) to manipulate nanotubes.

Another related item is the ARC algorithm from IBM, which is an adaptive cache for block buffers.

Thanks for the pointer. Here's a link to some background on ARC, and a paper describing the algorithm. Looks like an interesting algorithm.

Thanks for the pointer. Here's a link to some background on ARC, and a paper describing the algorithm. Looks like an interesting algorithm.

Ibrix has a really good clustered FS setup. Plus you can just plug in more systems when you want them.

Another thing that you may want to check out something liket GPFS if you want to build your own filesystem cluster.

IBM's open source project list:

4758 Secure Coprocessor Driver for Linux
This project is a Linux device driver for the IBM 4758 PCI Cryptographic Coprocessor, which is a tamper-sensing and responding, programmable PCI card. It provides a highly secure subsystem in which data processing and cryptography can be performed.

ATM on Linux
ATM support for Linux is currently in pre-alpha stage. There is an experimental release, which supports raw ATM connections (PVCs and SVCs), IP over ATM, LAN emulation, MPOA, Arequipa, and some other goodies.

Abstract Machine Test Utility (AMTU) for Linux
Abstract Machine Test Utility (AMTU) is an administrative utility that checks whether the underlying protection mechanism of the hardware is being enforced. This is a requirement of the Controlled Access Protection Profile (CAPP) FTP_AMT.1.

Ananas Project: Summary
This is the source for Working XML, a column on developerWorks with companion project code that demonstrates the evolution of full-fledged XML applications. This is distributed under the artistic license.

Apache HTTP Server
The Apache project develops and maintains an open-source HTTP server for various modern desktop and server operating systems.

BlueDrekar transport driver
This transport driver for BlueDrekar(TM) middleware is a reference implementation of the Bluetooth(TM) Host Controller Interface (HCI) UART transport layer and is available under the GNU license. The BlueDrekar protocol stack is also available on alphaWorks.

BlueHoc simulator
BlueHoc is a tool that predicts the performance of Bluetooth wireless hardware technologies. BlueHoc simulates the baseband and link layers of the Bluetooth specification.

BlueIce
BlueIce provides assistance in installing, configuring, and deploying J2EE applications on Linux using IBM middleware. It is currently used by the IBM eServer Integrated Platform for e-business.

COIN (Common Optimization INterface)
Developers can use Common Optimization INterface (COIN) to build optimization solutions. IBM mathematical optimization researchers opened the code they use in finding the optimal allocation of limited resources. The code has many applications in a variety of industries.

Channel Bonding
The Channel Bonding project works on methods to join multiple networks on Linux into a single logical network with higher bandwidth. The project team works with the Beowulf Ethernet Channel Bonding project, where bonding work began.

Consensus prototype
Consensus is a joint European project carried out by six companies. The project is partially funded by the European Commission. The project goal is to provide technology to support single-authoring for mobile devices. developerWorks hosts the open source implementation developed by the Consortium. Detailed information about the project is at the Consensus Project home page (http://www.consensus-online.org).

Content Query System (CQS) Project: Summary
Content Query System (CQS). CQS is a distributed peer-to-peer query system for the purpose of discovering content or data. XML messages are passed between systems and query "engines" are used to access the data that is being made available on the system.

Crypto Accelerator Driver
Device Driver Support for the IBM eServer Cryptographic Accelerator.

Crypto Interface Library
Generalized Interface library for the IBM eServer Cryptographic Accelerator Device Driver. Note, this is a low level api for the Specified adapter, it is not intended to be an interface which is written to by applications. Applications should use the openCryptoki PKCS#11 api for interfacing to the token.

DAISY
The DAISY (Dynamically Architected Instruction Set from Yorktown) project uses dynamic binary translation to emulate an existing architectu

if Java is is so good why dont they program it in Java?

I know you're trying to be funny, but they (they meaning IBM) have: It's called the Jikes RVM

From the link:

A distinguishing characteristic of Jikes RVM is that it is implemented in the Java programming language and is self-hosted i.e., its Java code runs on itself without requiring a second virtual machine. Most other virtual machines for the Java platform are written in native code (typically, C or C++). A Java implementation provides ease of portability, and a seamless integration of virtual machine and application resources such as objects, threads, and operating-system interfaces.

If you look at this PDF file, you'll see that typical power dissipation of the 1.8 GHz G5 is 42 watts. Assuming that's 75% of the maximum, we still end up with a maximum power rating of 56 watts. In comparison, typical power dissipation of an AMD Barton running at 1.8 GHz is around 54 watts typical, 68 watts maximum; an Intel P4 at 2.8 GHz (the slowest I can find readily available where I live) is rated at 56-68 watts (same page).

The other thing to bear in mind is: that thermal rating for the 970 is based upon figures for the 130 nm process. The die shrink to 90 nm should reduce it.

I don't think cooling is a major problem. It may take a bit of engineering work, but there's nothing particularly hard, I'd imagine. Yes, it's more than they've had to deal with when using the G4, but at least they don't have power constraints (which they will when it comes time to slide the G5 into a PowerBook.)

ummm given who owns Lotus, and the alleged direction of their own desktops, I'd be really, really surprised not to see a Linux native Notes in the not too distant future.

The true benefit of projects such as this is their independence from the big brother corporations

You mean like Sun and HP funding the Apache group?

Or Novell and Ximian underwriting the Mono Project?

Or IBM contributing to F/OSS?

Do you think these and other projects would be where they are today without the backing of serious money/resources?

I subbed to Linux Journal and SysAdmin for years, but LJ seems to reach a point where it just cycles back to newbieville once or twice a year and SysAdmin is much more mature about things. They both eventually piled up way too high and now I only buy the latest SysAdmin CD-ROM once a year. Its up to like 12 years or something now, with a searchable web interface. Can't be beat. I get to give my hand-me-downs to my friends.

I also can't get rid of Dr Dobb's Journal no matter how hard I try. I friggin' hate that pile of crap -- I mean waste of trees. Finally, the only paper mag I look forward to are the quarterly publications of IBM Systems Journal. $105/yr, free to IBM employees. 200 pages of ad-free, hardcore tech theory each quarter. It takes a few months to read each issue, too! It truly is a "journal", and not a magazine by any stretch of the imagination. Also, it gives me a great head start on what technologies IBM (and I as an architect) will be delivering to our customers over the next several months to a year. If you want ad-free, hype-free cutting edge tech theory with nothing but deep-dives, find an IBMer and ask them to subscribe! Its an incredible read. Oh, and I have unlimited access to Factiva.com, too.

Sony has a 5" display at 800x600 in their U50/U70 micro-notebook. And their slightly older U101 packs 1024x768 into a 7.1" display. (The U series used to have a 6.something" display at 1024x768, which was 200+ ppi.)

I agree. I think 200ppi is the next logical step. Then you just need to tell the OS to double all standard UI elements, and everything becomes readable, and crystal clear. (Windows already has this ability, which would be of great use in the story's ViewSonic/IBM monitor. The ViewSonic appears to be an OEM version of IBM's T220 display. Even the casing looks the same.)

Take a look at the IBM T221 and look at the listed example applications.

These things are meant for scientists and doctors, not consumers like you and I.

So get IBM's T221 instead - 3 years warranty, IBM support.

It isn't the size, it's the DPI and sheer number of pixels.

Also the IBM T221 or the Iiyama AQU5611DTBK displays are (worthy) competition. I'd go for the IBM display myself.

Take a look at IBM's list of potential uses: ...
* Engineering--view and rotate large 3D models e.g. automobiles and aircraft
* Gas & oil industry--seismic imaging for exploration, production and reservoir management
* Geographic Information Systems (GIS)--mapping, satellite imaging, asset management
* Medical assessment--radiography, computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), ultrasound, nuclear medicine, fluoroscopy, and angiography
* Publishing--pre-press, service providers, digital museums

These are meant for scientists and doctors, not UT2004 frag fests.

The IBM T221 has a resolution of 3840x2400 in 22.2".

Whilst its RRP from IBM is $8,399 USD you can find some resellers advertising them for $3,999 USD on froogle such as this.

The Iiyama AQU5611DTBK is also a 22" 9.2 Megapixel device.

You need two DVI cables to run these things at a decent screen update rate (no screen flicker, it just takes lots of digital bandwidth to pump that many pixels) when using all those pixels. The cards required are around $1,000 and I've seen Matrox and Nvidia configurations mentioned with the IBM display, though I'm sure ATI's FireGL cards could do the job, software willing.

So, are we going to get a news post about the IBM and Iiyama displays too?

Check this article which talks about the Matrox Parhelia 256HR for use with all three. It's from September 2003.

We have some of these at work. Both the ViewSonic branded ones and a few IBM ones on loan T221 They look really nice and have a DPI of close to 220dpi. The setup we are testing is a T221 a 21" CRT and 21" B&W monitor all on the same computer. We really want to get 2 T221 on the same computer but can't do it yet.

Parent link repaired.

I gaurantee that they both use the same LCD component, from the same manufacturer, and probably from the same fab, but they didn't just rebrand eachother's product.

1. the first one from IBM was the T220, which required 4 separate DVI inputs and only worked with slow 2D cards, i.e. the Matrox G200MMS provided with it. Initial price $20.000.- then lowered to $16.000.- (it was indeed very slow....)
2. IBM renamed it to T221 and improved it to handle 1- and 2-DVI inputs, thereby enabling 3D-accelerated cards to handle it: original FireGL cards finally could drive this at about 25Hz refresh rate
3. support came for other dual-DVI cards, such as the Quadro 4, and more refresh rates available: 20Hz,24Hz and 25Hz using both DVI ports, and 13Hz using only one
4. as of last year at Siggraph, IBM did not support Apple systems for these displays, but ViewSonic did, with their own version of the display (IBM's hardware repackaged, I presume) named VP2290b however, only a Radeon 8500 single DVI out was supported, hence the 13Hz refresh rate being the only one available...

More than for X-rays, it's been useful so far for astronomy applications, large dataset visualizations, etc. Being stuck at 13Hz on OS X, I have not put it as my main desktop display in the end.

Finally, although not as bad as on XP, there are still too many hardwired fixed-sized widgets in Mac OS X's interface to make a 200dpi display really usable. I'd go for a 30" 100dpi instead, at least for now, for general desktop use (XCode sure could do with some more real estate...)

1. the first one from IBM was the T220, which required 4 separate DVI inputs and only worked with slow 2D cards, i.e. the Matrox G200MMS provided with it. Initial price $20.000.- then lowered to $16.000.- (it was indeed very slow....)
2. IBM renamed it to T221 and improved it to handle 1- and 2-DVI inputs, thereby enabling 3D-accelerated cards to handle it: original FireGL cards finally could drive this at about 25Hz refresh rate
3. support came for other dual-DVI cards, such as the Quadro 4, and more refresh rates available: 20Hz,24Hz and 25Hz using both DVI ports, and 13Hz using only one
4. as of last year at Siggraph, IBM did not support Apple systems for these displays, but ViewSonic did, with their own version of the display (IBM's hardware repackaged, I presume) named VP2290b however, only a Radeon 8500 single DVI out was supported, hence the 13Hz refresh rate being the only one available...

More than for X-rays, it's been useful so far for astronomy applications, large dataset visualizations, etc. Being stuck at 13Hz on OS X, I have not put it as my main desktop display in the end.

Finally, although not as bad as on XP, there are still too many hardwired fixed-sized widgets in Mac OS X's interface to make a 200dpi display really usable. I'd go for a 30" 100dpi instead, at least for now, for general desktop use (XCode sure could do with some more real estate...)

I googled RECURSION and SQL, and came back with very little - apparently its only Oracle that's implemented this

Wrong. DB2 is rather close to implementing SQL:1999's recursiveness. There is an article comparing Oracle and DB2's recursive features.
-And a patch exists for adding Oracle-style recursion to PostgreSQL.

Whether WITH RECURSIVE or CONNECT BY work effectively is another question. I haven't seen any experimental articles considering this.

Without using recursive SQL, different encoding schemes exist for the purpose:

• most well-known: adjacency list
• nested set
• nested intervals
• materialized path

Joe Celko has recently published a book dedicated to the subject.

See my RDBMS links page for more on this.

The IBM T221 has a resolution of 3840x2400 in 22.2".

Whilst its RRP from IBM is $8,399 USD you can find some resellers advertising them for $3,999 USD on froogle such as this.

So the apple display is... considerably cheaper, and larger, but I'd still like an IBM T221...

I never write comments about documents on the back.

I don't do this often either, at least not recently. Most of what I handle is digital so comments are posted digitally as well. If your dealing with paper documents though, it may not be practical to write on the front side of it (especially if intending to Fax it out again).

you'd need at least a factor of 5 better resolution

Take a look at this monitor for a higher resolution device: IBM T221 Flat Panel. This device has a maximum resolution of 3840x2400. The device is rather expensive and you'll need high-end graphics cards, but they produce nice results. A company produced a solution that used 4 Dell PCs, 3 of these panels (driven by 3 of the Dells), and one plasma screen (driven by 1 Dell and it combined the results of the 3 panels to show an overview) to create a cockpit for fly through scenes. Quite an impressive demo, but very expensive.

I agree though that Looking Glass likely won't be a pratical application in it's current design. I just think that it shows some creativity. Might not be useful, but it shows concepts that may generate others to think differently too.

Open source won't use Java until Java is open source. Most OSS developers are wary of traps like that.
(Which caused reluctance to using Qt, which sparked the Gnome project. Now Qt is free, of course.)

Java is certainly going open source. Not Sun's java, but there are plenty of open-source VM:s, and compilers, and a full implementation of the class library in the works.

I predict that, when these projects reach sufficient maturity (AWT/Swing support being the achilles heel in all the above), we will see widespread adoption of Java in the OSS community.

What Sun does will have little impact on the OSS community unless they get serious about open source and put Java under a tolerable license.

(If someone's curious about what is bad about the Sun license, see Dalibor Topic's post here, containing a point-by-point comparison to the Open-source definition.)

--Troy

First of all, SQL databases can be installed and played with on your PC. Its close enough to the "big" databases to get your foot in the door. No one expects a new grad to have mastered the latest vedrsion of Oracle.

A lot of big, enterprise-level databases can be downloaded freely - Oracle, DB2, etc, either as full-but-don't-use-commercially or as trial versions. Experience - even on a personal project - with even one enterprise RDBMS would probably be considered by a potential employer if you could show them some code, say some stored procedures and some maintenance code like Bash scripts to back-up.

I agree with the parent poster - choose one specialty and know it comfortably. Don't try and be a jack-of-all-trades: it's not credible for a recent graduate, and employers will usually expect you to learn-on-the-job, anyway. Look to picking up, say, networking skills, once you've found a job.

Synopsis: All new kit to have embedded encryption co-processors, available September. Throw the old stuff away.

And the guys who found the Giant Magnetoresistive effect, which is the base of MRAM, are step closer to their Nobel prize.

I think we will see MS engaging in many more examples of fighting fire with fire in the years to come, and 5 years from now Microsoft will probably have released more software under Shared Source, and some under some kind of actual open source license, than any of us would now believe possible. By sharing source and even outright open-sourcing some software, they hope to further stave off the inevitable. It might help a little, in some areas, but far less than they might think. What draws people to Free and Open Source Software is precisely that it is free and open; if it was just shared, nobody would much care about Linux and *BSD; it wouldn't be that much of an improvement on Windows, for many.

but it's a interesting change of policy

This change is not from today, the change started with WIX under the CPL.

Anyway, if you make a CPL program better(and if it's not yours) you can't earn money with this, only if it helps you to make other things, but who created the program can earn money with your code.

The want the media atention and to be the good guys with this things. Them whem someone talk about Microsoft be against open source software they will say: "we released XX softwares under open source licenses, how we can be against our softwares?"

There's really very little to be said in favor of Jonathan A. Zdziarski's "defense". I guess it just amounts to him wanting to sell his product. Of course, I remember when CRM114 first came out, it was subject to some very dubious--or often simply incoherent--claims. It's pretty clear Zdziarski is in quite a bit over his head... not quite as bad as the amateurs who discover their own "breakthrough" encryption techniques, but tending in the same direction.

As near as I can tell (I skimmed, admittedly, I didn't read every word carefully), his defense amounts to "please don't test the different filters because..." Fill in what feature of the test MUST not be the same as the CRM114 users who get 99.95% accuracy. This is precisely the meaning of "special pleading" in rhetoric. Also the same argument about "if only he had tried the latest-and-greatest (even though we made our wild claims before that version came out, too)."

Cormack &alia make a reasonable best effort to test several tools; and as with any test, they make certain assumptions, and choose certain methodologies. Frankly, I find that a lot more useful that "just trust us, ours works best...but we can't quantify what 'works' means."

FWIW, I wrote an empirical study of different spam filters, way back shortly after the Paul Graham buzz:

Spam Filtering Techniques: Six approaches to eliminating unwanted e-mail.

I know my study is based on quite old tool versions by now. But AFAIK, it's one of the few that actually came at the comparisons from an unbiased viewpoint. Most figures are based on the "experiences" of the strongest proponents of a given tool (or occasionally from a strong detractor). I had/have no agenda for or against any particular tool, I was just curious.

More info at IBM.

IMHO there is:

IBM Systems Journal, Vol. 35, No. 3&4, 1996 - MIT Media Lab
ACM Newsletter, April 2000
Microsoft US Patent 6,754,472 - Filed: April 27, 2000
2L8? ;-/

I don't see anyone "whining" here whatsoever. I see Open Source advocates defending themselves against a lot of blatant lies spread by Microsoft and its funded quangos.

If you don't see it, it's because you aren't looking. This whole post amounts to "All the groups who argue against our stuff (not FOR Microsoft's stuff, these aren't findings that "Windows 2003 Server rocks!", they're findings that "Open Source is a bad idea") are only doing it because they're in league with Microsoft!

There's so much more rhetoric here than reason. So much more "The guy who said my software has bugs is EVIL!" than "We fixed that bug two months ago, and instituted a practice to ensure that similar bugs are found immediately."

I come here everyday looking for the second one. Looking for "these are legitimate reasons why [some Open Source software] is better than it was yesterday, and is now a credible alternative to [whatever "closed-source", not necessarily Microsoft, products I'm using]" or "here's something you haven't thought of about MS and OSS". Every so often I find one such post, but it's very rare.

For every one of those rational, helpful posts, I have to wade through nine of these "Microsoft is like a whiny baby!" posts.

As for:
OSS has not got to where it is today by constantly attacking Microsoft or by large glossy magazine or billboard adverts - it's got there just through word of mouth.

I suggest you check out this word of mouth site. From where I sit, the biggest advances OSS has made, in terms of acceptance in the marketplace, have come from huge companies like Sun and IBM, with their glossy magazine and billboard adverts.

Lastly, if we accept your belief that Microsoft has an awful public image, we come to the conclusion that 90% of people don't care about the public image of the company who makes their software, and that therefore CIO's are going to take studies claiming the efficacy of closed-source more seriously than articles about Microsoft's evil corruption.

Did IBM already patent this technology or was someone in their IP department asleep at the switch?

If IBM did file for and receive a patent, how do the two differ?

Are IBM and Microsoft in for a big patent battle?

Did the patent office screw up?

Yes -- see IBMs paper on the subject.... note the date of the -prior art- demonstration: November 18-19, 1996 -- Microsoft filed their patent April 27, 2000. I wonder where they got there ideas from?

Brought to you by our friends at google
IBM's current study into PANs
The journal from 1996 published by T.G. Zimmerman

Brought to you by our friends at google
IBM's current study into PANs
The journal from 1996 published by T.G. Zimmerman

Found it.

It was an IBM researcher by the name of Tom Zimmerman who created a "Personal Area Network", back in 1996: Personal Area Networks (PAN): A Technology Demonstration by IBM Research.

Looks and sounds a lot like what MSFT just patented.

Not only do they do that, but they use better-looking people

I've been researching chipsets for digital TV. Here are my links to current hardware products:

STMicroelectronics System on Chip (2) Get Linux here
ATI Xilleon 220 (Products)
Sigma Designs Digital Media Processors (Products)
IBM PowerPC405 STBxx (Zarlink [2], Araneo)
Texas Instruments DM642 DSP (i3 Mood Box , X-Designs Flikit + Softier MediaLinux)
NEC EMMArchitecture2 (Galaxis + LinuxTV , PRISMIQ + Linux)
Equator Technologies BSP-15 boards
Via CN400 (Mini-ITX Board), PM800 and PM880 (w/ HDTV for Pentium 4) , ShowShifter HMN, Soyo Multimedia Ready Motherboard (with TV Tuner, $129.99)
Toshiba TX System RISC (MontaVista Linux)
Windows chipsets:
Intel 815 VisionPlus terrestrial box (Korean OEM)
AMD Geode (CoCom)
ARM (Samsung, etc.)
Digeo X-Stream (Paul Allen company)

G5s are based on the IBM 64-bit POWER architecture. Which doesn't support little endian. So that's why the G5s don't support it. But the 32-bit PPC chips that IBM and Motorola shared do.

The entire PPC line is based on the Power chips. PPC was always designed to do 64-bit, such as the PowerPC 620. Besides, dual endian is part of the PPC spec.

There's this wiki on the PowerPC which has this,

In Little-Endian mode, the three lowest-order bits of the effective address are exclusive-ORed with a three bit value selected by the length of the operand. This is not quite the same as being truly little-endian, and can cause problems when communicating with external devices.

In theory the byte order of the processor can be switched at run-time to support both Big- and Little-Endian programs simultaneously, and in fact it is possible to run a program in one mode and exception handlers (i.e. the operating system) in another. Practically speaking this would be difficult due to the interaction with external devices which have their own byte ordering.

An interesting side-effect of this implementation is that a program can store a 64-bit value (the longest operand format) to an address A while in one endian mode, switch modes, and when the value is read back from A it will be identical, even though ostensibly the processor is now in the opposite byte-order mode.